Hawking, God & the Universe

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

I bought the book and wasn't terribly impressed. There's not much there that isn't already in the other, far better, books from him: "The universe in a nutshell." and "A brief history of time." Penrose's new book is better for novel and interesting theory. I think the problem with a lot of pop-physics books is the authors are always afraid to rigorously describe physics due to the maths that might need to be invoked.

Agree with you Morbert, I thought it was a little disappointing as regards new ideas, and the standards he had in previous books/documentaries with less of a controversial title..

While I am not a fan of the multi-verse conjecture, I should point out that a form of it does exist in quantum mechanics, and is very well established by experiment. Basically, the time-evolution of a quantum system (i.e. How it changes) is not defined by a single "path", but rather a collection of all possible paths. These paths all interfere with each-other to produce a probability for what we will observe. This is well-established http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9xM2_MrC2k&feature=related and, at the very very least, has forced us to re-think the way things are at their most fundamental level.

Yep, the maths of the quantum world are far more weird and chaotic than the lovely smooth mathematics of Einstein...To marry both would be fabulous, but not only that to get it 'right' would be even more fabulous...

String theory, with all it's assumptions on particle physics, and following from it the 'multiverse' theory, seem to add up at the moment as regards the 'mathematics' moreso than observation will allow, but give a picture of the universe/multiverse that seems so.... well,....'theoretical' and by consequence of the multiverse and our nature so very 'unobservable', not testable, the search is on for particles....and the pain in the arse is that it will probably end up being 'undeniable' by it's enthusiasts, in an 'unobservable', but mathematical way, because the maths is lovely!...but still we need to find evidence before it's taken seriously, hence the millions spent on the LHC.....It's very irritating to say the least :DD but very exciting too..

Scotty, beam me up! Love this stuff!

jobee

Onesimus wrote: »

jobee wrote: »

But you are not God, '' For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.'' (Isaiah 55:8 )

Yes we are wimps, for our weakness is his strength. But only when we acknowledge our weakness will we allow him to dwell in us and heal our souls.

edited to remove trolling (again)

kelly1

A video from Fr. Robert Spitzer (philosopher) on this subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1cy3iCrxic

His website is http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

I bought the book and wasn't terribly impressed. There's not much there that isn't already in the other, far better, books from him: "The universe in a nutshell." and "A brief history of time." Penrose's new book is better for novel and interesting theory. I think the problem with a lot of pop-physics books is the authors are always afraid to rigorously describe physics due to the maths that might need to be invoked.

It was really interesting to hear what Penrose had to say about M-Theory. He largely scathing of the theory and he even states that M-Theory doesn't exist as a theory. Of course, Penrose has his own ideas to promote - which I'm sure you are familiar with after reading his book.

Morbert

kelly1 wrote: »

A video from Fr. Robert Spitzer (philosopher) on this subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1cy3iCrxic

His website is http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/

Stephen Hawking's book is not great, but addressing it with metaphysics will just make things worse. General Relativity does predict a 'beginning' of the universe, but to describe what kind of phenomenon this 'beginning' is, we need a theory of quantum gravity. The gravitational field in relativity is time and space. It is only the surface of some deeper underlying quantum structure of the universe, and quantum gravity would tell us how they emerge. This structure (whether it turns out to be M-theory or Penrose's CCC universe) is timeless, and doesn't need a cause any more than God would need a cause.

A meta-physicist can still ask why is there a universe rather than nothing. A meta-physicist can also ask why is there a God rather than nothing. Meta-physicists can ask lots of questions that don't necessarily have answers.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It was really interesting to hear what Penrose had to say about M-Theory. He largely scathing of the theory and he even states that M-Theory doesn't exist as a theory. Of course, Penrose has his own ideas to promote - which I'm sure you are familiar with after reading his book.

Yeah, M-theory doesn't really exist yet. The primary motivation behind its development is the ease in which General Relativity can be consistently derived from String theory (which, in turn, doesn't fully exist yet either). I am not against String Theory, as the contributions it has made towards mathematics is valuable, but it certainly isn't established despite the enthusiasm behind it.

jobee

Onesimus wrote: »

jobee wrote: »

But you are not God, '' For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.'' (Isaiah 55:8 )

Yes we are wimps, for our weakness is his strength. But only when we acknowledge our weakness will we allow him to dwell in us and heal our souls.

/QUOTE]
Then show me God, add some substance to your argument.

Fanny Cradock

jobee wrote: »

But you are not God, '' For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.'' (Isaiah 55:8 )

Yes we are wimps, for our weakness is his strength. But only when we acknowledge our weakness will we allow him to dwell in us and heal our souls.

/QUOTE]
Then show me God, add some substance to your argument.

This is off topic, Jobee.

jobee

Seaneh wrote: »

I have never argued that God "has" to exist though...[

/QUOTE]
The Council of Europe has argued that God does not exist.

Council of Europe: Ban Creationism since it may become "Threat to Human Rights" and Democracy
Ominously paints a "war on the theory of evolution" by religious extremists "closely allied to extreme right-wing political

By John-Henry Westen

STRASBOURG, November 1, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (CoE) has adopted a resolution to ban creationism from receiving any discussion in schools outside of religion classes. "The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies," said the resolution adopted on October 4 by the Parliament made up of 626 members elected from each European Member State.

"If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe," said the resolution.



http://www.tldm.org/News11/CouncilOfEuropeBanCreationism.htm

Fanny Cradock

Last warning, Jobee. Next time you take a holiday. It should not be difficult to stay on topic.

jobee

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This is off topic, Jobee.

So God is off topic on a religious site, strange.

Fanny Cradock

I assume you are being deliberately obtuse. You have ignored several warnings to keep your post on topic but it seems you aren't interested in learning. Enjoy your break.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

The some what predictable response in those links from theists suggests that even if M-theory was found to be accurate (and we are a long way off from that) that would do little for faith in God, as God would just be moved some where else.

An infinite multiverse would certain cause troulbe for any notions that God is necessary though.

Not really. If an infinite multiverse is true, and within it we have every single possible universe, then it logically follows that within this multiverse there will be a universe where God is necessary. Wouldn't you agree? If you do agree, then why can't the universe we inhabit be that universe? Who is to say that it isn't? If you don't agree then there is no such thing as a multiverse wherein every possible universe exists.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not really. If an infinite multiverse is true, and within it we have every single possible universe, then it logically follows that within this multiverse there will be a universe where God is necessary.

Yeah but it won't exist since God is necessary for it to exist.

I mean even in an infinite universe you aren't going to get something that cannot, logically, exist.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but it won't exist since God is necessary for it to exist.

I mean even in an infinite universe you aren't going to get something that cannot, logically, exist.

So only universes that we in our isolated and unconnected universe can logically conceive of are allowed to exist in the multivese? If the multivese is true then why should it be contingent upon what we conceive it should be?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

So only universes that we in our isolated and unconnected universe can logically conceive of are allowed to exist in the multivese?

Er, perhaps I'm not following. How can a universe that requires God to exist exist if God doesn't, even if you have an infinite number of possible universes?

It would seem that the "requires God" bit would make it impossible to exist with God. You are defining your universe as being not possible and then complaining that I'm not open minded enough to imagine it could exist

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, perhaps I'm not following. How can a universe that requires God to exist exist if God doesn't, even if you have an infinite number of possible universes?

Why not? Why should the multivese be contingent upon what we perceive to be logically contradictions? Why can't a universe exist in this ensemble that is logically contradictory to us?

Wicknight wrote: »

It would seem that the "requires God" bit would make it impossible to exist with God. You are defining your universe as being not possible and then complaining that I'm not open minded enough to imagine it could exist

No I'm not. I'm asking you why should the multivese be limited to what we can conceive it to be? If we can have a universe where World War II never happened and one where there is no such thing as religion and one where these is no such thing as science and one where there is no God then why can't we have one where there is a God? Why is that one not allowed? And the reason being is because we in our insignificant spec of a universe can't conceive of it?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why not?

Because you defined it as such. If it can exist without God then why does it require God exactly?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why should the multivese be contingent upon what we perceive to be logically contradictions?

Do you understand what a logical contradiction is. It is more a problem with your definition than the multiverse.

If this theoretical universe exists and God doesn't exist then this universe doesn't require God and you are wrong in how you have defined it.

The multiverse isn't contingent upon this, you are.

Soul Winner wrote: »

No I'm not. I'm asking you why should the multivese be limited to what we can conceive it to be?

It isn't.

You though are contingent on describing it as it is. A universe that exists with no God does not require God, as such you have defined it wrong.

To say it does require God is simply bad descriptiveness on your part.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If we can have a universe where World War II never happened and one where there is no such thing as religion and one where these is no such thing as science and one where there is no God then why can't we have one where there is a God?

Wouldn't that make God contingent on the multiverse (ie doesn't exist outside of his own universe).

Would you be happy with such a definition?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Because you defined it as such. If it can exist without God then why does it require God exactly?



Do you understand what a logical contradiction is. It is more a problem with your definition than the multiverse.

If this theoretical universe exists and God doesn't exist then this universe doesn't require God and you are wrong in how you have defined it.

The multiverse isn't contingent upon this, you are.


It isn't.

You though are contingent on describing it as it is. A universe that exists with no God does not require God, as such you have defined it wrong.

To say it does require God is simply bad descriptiveness on your part.



Wouldn't that make God contingent on the multiverse (ie doesn't exist outside of his own universe).

Would you be happy with such a definition?

I think we are getting bogged down in semantics at this stage.

If there is a multivese then how did it begin? If it had no beginning then that means that it must have existed infinitely in the past. But if it has existed infinitely in the past then the number of events which lead to our universe coming into existence is also infinite in the past, which means that our universe could never be arrived at now because there would be an infinite number of past events that need to have happened in order to get to where we are now, and if there is an infinite number of events that must have preceded our universe then our universe could not exist now, in other words we can never come to now in our universe if the multivese had no beginning, which means that (if it does exist) then it must have had a beginning, because we are here and now. But if the multivese does have a beginning then how did it get going?

Turtwig

Morbert wrote: »

Penrose's new book is better for novel and interesting theory.

Road's to Reality? Second that, it's absolutely brilliant.:D

Morbert

Malty_T wrote: »

Road's to Reality? Second that, it's absolutely brilliant.:D

That is brilliant. But the book I'm talking about is this one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cycles-Time-Extraordinary-View-Universe/dp/0224080369

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not really. If an infinite multiverse is true, and within it we have every single possible universe, then it logically follows that within this multiverse there will be a universe where God is necessary. Wouldn't you agree? If you do agree, then why can't the universe we inhabit be that universe? Who is to say that it isn't? If you don't agree then there is no such thing as a multiverse wherein every possible universe exists.

When physicists say every 'possible' universe. They are referring to every possible history of the universe where "history" is a version of Richard Feynmann's sum-over-histories formalism of quantum mechanics.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

Road's to Reality? Second that, it's absolutely brilliant.:D

In case you haven't listened to it yet, Penrose discusses Conformal Cyclic Cosmology during the show.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think we are getting bogged down in semantics at this stage.

If there is a multivese then how did it begin?

If M-theory is correct (and I think everyone agrees that this is a big if at this stage, it is a totally untested hypothesis), then the multiverse didn't being, it is infinite.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it had no beginning then that means that it must have existed infinitely in the past. But if it has existed infinitely in the past then the number of events which lead to our universe coming into existence is also infinite in the past, which means that our universe could never be arrived at now because there would be an infinite number of past events that need to have happened in order to get to where we are now, and if there is an infinite number of events that must have preceded our universe then our universe could not exist now, in other words we can never come to now in our universe if the multivese had no beginning, which means that (if it does exist) then it must have had a beginning, because we are here and now.

Why could we not exist if the multiverse is infinite?

In m-theory if I'm following we have two high dimensional "branes" colliding with each other and then pulling apart, colliding pulling apart over and over infinitely. Each universe is created and then destroyed and replaced by another one.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Why could we not exist if the multiverse is infinite?

Well logically speaking, if the branes which collided together to create our universe existed infinitely in the past, then the number of events which lead up to the creation of our temporal universe is also infinite in the past, which means that an infinite number of events must have happened in the past in order to get to to where we are now. But if an infinite number of events happened in the past which lead up to where we are now then we can never arrive at now in reality given that the number of events which lead to our universe would be still taking place given that their number is infinite.

Which means that if the multivese is real then it must also be finite in the past, which would mean that we could exist now given that the number of past events which lead to our universe would also be finite?

So which is it? Finite or infinite? If its true then it must be finite and if its finite the how did it begin?

Soul Winner

On a separate note re: Stephen Hawking: I was watching his program the other night and he said in it that if we were to find microbes on another world then it would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. Now for humans to find microbes on say Mars it would take an unbelievable effort on the part of NASA/ESA to get us there and back in order to do so. It would cost billions and it take a very long time to prepare for and executed the mission. Then at the end of program he was talking about people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and that he would approach such stories with caution and skepticism because he doubts very much that aliens would travel such vast distances to abduct an insignificant human.

I thought that was a very strange thing to say considering what it would take for us (effort and money wise) to collect simple microbes from Mars or Europa or wherever. If life is as rare as some people think it is and rarer still technologically advanced life, then I would say that you would be hard pressed to one up your alien competitors had they bagged a human being to study. Just thought it was a strange thing for him to say given what he said about microbes and just thought I'd share that with you.

kelly1

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well logically speaking, if the branes which collided together to create our universe existed infinitely in the past, then the number of events which lead up to the creation of our temporal universe is also infinite in the past, which means that an infinite number of events must have happened in the past in order to get to to where we are now. But if an infinite number of events happened in the past which lead up to where we are now then we can never arrive at now in reality given that the number of events which lead to our universe would be still taking place given that their number is infinite.

Which means that if the multivese is real then it must also be finite in the past, which would mean that we could exist now given that the number of past events which lead to our universe would also be finite?

Wow that's long-winded! I think the basic question is, can an actual infinity exist? Apparently an actual infinity is self-contradictory. One for the mathematicians and philosophers...

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well logically speaking, if the branes which collided together to create our universe existed infinitely in the past, then the number of events which lead up to the creation of our temporal universe is also infinite in the past, which means that an infinite number of events must have happened in the past in order to get to to where we are now. But if an infinite number of events happened in the past which lead up to where we are now then we can never arrive at now in reality given that the number of events which lead to our universe would be still taking place given that their number is infinite.

Ah right, yes now I get you. That is known as the infinite past paradox and it is a tricky one at first glance. But if you sit down and work it out logically it doesn't actually hold as a problem.

The issue arises when viewing time as something you have to move through to get to the next point. This is the "one true present" paradigm. And the present can never get to this point if it has an infinite number of points to get to before hand. If you view time like that then it looks like you can never reach "now" since you have an infinite number of things to do before you can reach "now".

The thing is this isn't actually necessary. You can propose an infinite space without requiring that you have to travel to all points. Likewise an infinite time would not require that you move through time to get to each point on the time line. There becomes no true present.

This blog post explains it better than I could.

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2006/04/unchanging-time-and-infinite-past.html

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

On a separate note re: Stephen Hawking: I was watching his program the other night and he said in it that if we were to find microbes on another world then it would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. Now for humans to find microbes on say Mars it would take an unbelievable effort on the part of NASA/ESA to get us there and back in order to do so. It would cost billions and it take a very long time to prepare for and executed the mission. Then at the end of program he was talking about people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and that he would approach such stories with caution and skepticism because he doubts very much that aliens would travel such vast distances to abduct an insignificant human.

I thought that was a very strange thing to say considering what it would take for us (effort and money wise) to collect simple microbes from Mars or Europa or wherever. If life is as rare as some people think it is and rarer still technologically advanced life, then I would say that you would be hard pressed to one up your alien competitors had they bagged a human being to study. Just thought it was a strange thing for him to say given what he said about microbes and just thought I'd share that with you.

The issue is the distances required are so huge as to make it rather impractical.

Travelling to Mars is quite a bit easier than travelling to another star system.

From the same program (or series at least) If we could get up to 99.9% of the speed of light time on the space ship would slow down significantly but it will still take 80 years to get to the edge of the galaxy (or 250,000 years for people on Earth)

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah right, yes now I get you. That is known as the infinite past paradox and it is a tricky one at first glance. But if you sit down and work it out logically it doesn't actually hold as a problem.

The issue arises when viewing time as something you have to move through to get to the next point. This is the "one true present" paradigm. And the present can never get to this point if it has an infinite number of points to get to before hand. If you view time like that then it looks like you can never reach "now" since you have an infinite number of things to do before you can reach "now".

The thing is this isn't actually necessary. You can propose an infinite space without requiring that you have to travel to all points. Likewise an infinite time would not require that you move through time to get to each point on the time line. There becomes no true present.

Well if we propose that then time doesn't really exist. If the 'now', in which I'm typing this is the same as the 'now' in which I posted my last post, all be it separated by many other 'nows' in between, then how are we able to measure the age of something if we don't connect the 'nows' in between chronologically? If the earth as we see it today is 4.5 billion years old but 4.5 billion years ago it was just starting to form from space dust, then under this new recooking of time the earth has always been the same, that the addition of time is just a series of 'nows' added to the mix, that there was no previous events as such which lead to its formation i.e. solar system development due to supernovae activity creating the heavy elements which go up to make the planets and so on, and before that other events such as star and galaxy formation due to the clumping of matter due to gravity acting on the rapid expansion of space and matter due to the initial force of the big bang and then right back before the big bang itself to these colliding branes.

If we assume that 'now' in time is the same as 'here' in space then potentially every place in the universe can be considered 'here' and every time in the universe can be considered 'now', meaning that now 'now' is the same as then 'now'. And where you are in the world is 'here' just as much as where I am in the world is 'here'. Which means that in a sense not only is time relative but space is also relative too, depending on where we are in it, meaning that if there is no such thing as time then there is no such thing as distance either.

Where you are in the world is 'here' to you but where I am in the world is 'here' to me. But where you are in the world is 'there' to me and if I measure the distance from 'there' to where i am i.e. 'here' I will arrive at a figure. Same thing with time. I can measure from 'now' (i.e. when I am typing this) to the time that this thread was started. The number of events which lead up to me typing this can be measured from the time that this thread was started right up till now, and the number of events within that time is a finite figure.

So even though time is relative in this sense, events can still be traced from one 'now' in the past to another 'now' in the not so distant past. But in an infinite multivese we can never do this because there is no starting event from which we can start calculating forward from, there is just an infinite number of events which lead up to 'now', and in a multivese where there are an infinite number of events which preceded our present then we can never arrive at our present because the number of events which lead to it would still be taking place. So the fact that we are in the present proves that even if the multivese hypothesis is true it must be finite in the past. So if its finite in the past then how did it start? What caused it? Had to be something.